[DC 86]

It’s not Zaidi’s money.  It his budget.  Whatever that may be.  If the Giants are going to pretend that they can’t compete money wise, then last year will be an aberration.  They have lost Posey and Bryant.  They are woefully short of right handed bats.  Longer term contracts for hitters have less risk than for pitchers. If they are going to insist that they won’t go over 3 or 4 years, then im not particularly optimistic moving forward. Fortunately, im relatively confident that Zaidi won’t be inflexible. 

Again, the Dodgers are the model.  Build farm system (check). Find diamonds in the rough (check) AND when the opportunity strikes to sign an occasional whale, do it. (Giants haven’t checked that box).

The Giants should have a very large budget. At or near whatever the figure is they determine for a luxury tax.  They are a top 5 team value wise.  

I agree 100%, except that there's no reason for a high revenue team such as SF not to exceed the luxury tax threshold if warranted. It's a self imposed profit creator, but it's not morally wrong to spend money and it's not going to have any material impact on ownership to exceed whatever the threshold is set at, except for possibly increasing revenue and franchise value if the team wins/draws more fans/maximizes broadcast revenue and merchandise sales. The Dodgers are indeed the model for Zaidi/Giants, and they are a disciplined organization which has nevertheless paid luxury tax when it's been strategically beneficial to do so. Maybe it makes sense this year or not - perhaps not given the remaining free agents available - but I've never understood fans concerned about owners' finances. Steve Cohen is going to pay tens of millions in luxury tax it appears. His net worth is around $16 billion. Maybe that's good or bad for the baseball as a whole, but if I were a Mets fan I would be delighted. The Giants are a high revenue team with a strong fan base, no excuse to cite the tax as a reason not to sign a player who can be the difference between a championship or less.

[DC 86]

It’s not Zaidi’s money.  It his budget.  Whatever that may be.  If the Giants are going to pretend that they can’t compete money wise, then last year will be an aberration.  They have lost Posey and Bryant.  They are woefully short of right handed bats.  Longer term contracts for hitters have less risk than for pitchers. If they are going to insist that they won’t go over 3 or 4 years, then im not particularly optimistic moving forward. Fortunately, im relatively confident that Zaidi won’t be inflexible. 

Again, the Dodgers are the model.  Build farm system (check). Find diamonds in the rough (check) AND when the opportunity strikes to sign an occasional whale, do it. (Giants haven’t checked that box).

The Giants should have a very large budget. At or near whatever the figure is they determine for a luxury tax.  They are a top 5 team value wise.  

I agree 100%, except that there's no reason for a high revenue team such as SF not to exceed the luxury tax threshold if warranted. It's a self imposed profit creator, but it's not morally wrong to spend money and it's not going to have any material impact on ownership to exceed whatever the threshold is set at, except for possibly increasing revenue and franchise value if the team wins/draws more fans/maximizes broadcast revenue and merchandise sales. The Dodgers are indeed the model for Zaidi/Giants, and they are a disciplined organization which has nevertheless paid luxury tax when it's been strategically beneficial to do so. Maybe it makes sense this year or not - perhaps not given the remaining free agents available - but I've never understood fans concerned about owners' finances. Steve Cohen is going to pay tens of millions in luxury tax it appears. His net worth is around $16 billion. Maybe that's good or bad for the baseball as a whole, but if I were a Mets fan I would be delighted. The Giants are a high revenue team with a strong fan base, no excuse to cite the tax as a reason not to sign a player who can be the difference between a championship or less.